Remember me
▼ Content

Total global CO2-stop (scientific value?)



Page 2 of 3<123>
21-11-2015 03:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote: So what do you say then.. "reverse"..? ­

You said that we passed the "tipping point." That means it's too late. We can't go back. If we can reverse the process then we haven't passed the "tipping point."

Maybe you mean to say we are very close to a "tipping point."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-11-2015 10:56
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@IBdaMann

It can tip it back it just takes a lot more to go reverse than before the tipping-point was passed.





­­
21-11-2015 13:56
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@still learning


Probably not a straight-line decrease. Decrease not measurable on a daily basis, for sure. Even a year's data would be suspect.


That seems depressing to me so I hope it is okay that I try pushing you a little and see what you say to another point of view.


If we look at the picture below we see a steady increase approx 3 ppm per year.

If we stop emissions for a year it will drop 4,5 ppm

4,5 down instead of 3 up that must be possible to measure..?


Even a "halfcut" for a year will mean 2,25 down instead of 3 up.


I know about the back of the envelope but it still smells a little to me like it is maybe worth digging deeper into.

Can you explain to me again why such a big difference is difficult to measure today with all the finest modern equipment..?


Do you think CO2 will drop fastest in the beginning or in the end of a 10 year total emission stop period..?








­
21-11-2015 20:47
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@still learning

There are so many other subjects trying to save the world in forum tonight I just hope you don't overlook my post for you.
About the pushing I mean it of coarse in a friendly way. I hope not you think I want to push you crackpot-stuff.
At the moment I just don't think anybody else here has the skills to dig deeper.





­­
Edited on 21-11-2015 20:52
21-11-2015 22:00
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




@still learning

Maybe we can make it easier and better if you just imagine it is already decided.

In 2017 the world makes a half-cut on emissions for a year and science has to reach for new heights to get the best out of the experiment.

If you were responsible for the experiment and you had a lot of money to act with what can you think of to come up with to get as much good science out of it as possible..?






­
22-11-2015 00:49
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(164)
Jakob wrote:
­At the moment I just don't think anybody else here has the skills to dig deeper.
­­


Of folks posting in the past couple of days, Surface Detail certainly does. Read his postings, a lot of good stuff there, much more atmospheric physics expertise than I have.

Anyway, tried responding to your last post with a graph, got stuck.
On that graph you see things differently than me. I see a 30 ppm rise in CO2 in the period 2001 to 2015. I don't get 3 ppm per year out of that.

Anyway, while it might be an interesting thought experiment to think about what would happen to the CO2 concentration of our air if fossil fuel combustion were suddenly stopped or halfway stopped for a year, it would be just a thought experiment. To actually suddenly stop or halfway stop would disrupt world agriculture and world commerce hugely. I'd guess widespread famine before too many months.

Greatly reducing fossil fuel use over the next three or four decades is a worthwhile goal, an attainable goal, I think. Something to work toward.
22-11-2015 04:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
still learning wrote: Greatly reducing fossil fuel use over the next three or four decades is a worthwhile goal, an attainable goal, I think.

It certainly would be a goal, and an attainable one. It just wouldn't be worthwhile. I can only think of two reasons why someone would even suggest such a thing:

1. s/he is a Marxist who hates the fossil fuel industry for its success, or

2. s/he gullibly believes CO2 is somehow a pollutant/poison

Would you instead go for everyone getting whips and letting us all just give each other lashings twice per day?


still learning wrote: Something to work toward.

Hardly.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2015 13:59
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



Into the Night wrote:
These instruments work by pushing air through a chamber with a window that contains an infrared LED and a phototransistor. I assume the material chosen for the window is basically transparent to the infrared frequencies of interest.

Because many gases absorb infrared at the same or at nearby frequencies to that of CO2, it is quite possible to be measuring something else that could affect the CO2 measurement.


I don't know about that so this is maybe a silly question but couldn't they just pick up samples by plains, ships, cars and people on the ground and sent it all to a lab with a machine that really knows how to measure the CO2 concentration..?

And how about the newest satellites..?




­
22-11-2015 15:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:And how about the newest satellites..?
­

Are there any satellites that are streaming their data for public review or is all the raw data "secret"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2015 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­



Into the Night wrote:
These instruments work by pushing air through a chamber with a window that contains an infrared LED and a phototransistor. I assume the material chosen for the window is basically transparent to the infrared frequencies of interest.

Because many gases absorb infrared at the same or at nearby frequencies to that of CO2, it is quite possible to be measuring something else that could affect the CO2 measurement.


I don't know about that so this is maybe a silly question but couldn't they just pick up samples by plains, ships, cars and people on the ground and sent it all to a lab with a machine that really knows how to measure the CO2 concentration..?

And how about the newest satellites..?




­

Picking up samples of plains [sic], ships, cars, and people will give you samples of CO2 certainly, but also of other substances like water vapor, NOx, the latest virus, etc.

There's an easier way. Obtain CO2 cryogenically. Since you can separate all substances mixed with air in this way, this is about the purist way possible. It's cheap too. You can compressed bottles of the stuff from such a plant for little more than the cost of the bottle.

The problem you run into with the instrument is trusting the calibration you use (and they do use this method) is not enough. There could easily be a difference between calibrated air and the stuff you are putting through to gather data that would give a false reading.

I am not sure what satellites you are referring to. At the moment, the United States has extremely limited launch capability.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2015 03:04
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




@Into the Night


The first you wrote about was as I remember it something with laser.
Was it maybe a spectrometer like this:

Stack Gas Analyzer GI-700 Series
http://www.horiba.com/process-environmental/products/combustion/details/stack-gas-analyzer-gi-700-series-24881/

They say this about the precision:

5 ppm High-Precision measurement (NOx, SO2 and CO) is available.



They don't mention CO2 but 5 ppm don't seem good enough for the purpose hunted in this subject.

Or maybe it does.

If you just get enough data you can increase the certainty just fine..?

Calibration is not important if we just want to read the change.





@IBdaMann

Are there any satellites that are streaming their data for public review or is all the raw data "secret"?


I don't know but it will surprise me a little if science wants to keep it a big secret how accurate they can measure CO2 that way.






­
25-11-2015 05:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:
@IBdaMann

Are there any satellites that are streaming their data for public review or is all the raw data "secret"?


I don't know but it will surprise me a little if science wants to keep it a big secret how accurate they can measure CO2 that way.

Exactly. Science is all about public scrutiny.

Religion is all about clergy maintaing a monopoly on "divine knowledge."

So, why are there no public real-time raw data streams?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-11-2015 09:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
IBdaMann wrote:
Jakob wrote:
@IBdaMann

Are there any satellites that are streaming their data for public review or is all the raw data "secret"?


I don't know but it will surprise me a little if science wants to keep it a big secret how accurate they can measure CO2 that way.

Exactly. Science is all about public scrutiny.

Religion is all about clergy maintaing a monopoly on "divine knowledge."

So, why are there no public real-time raw data streams?

Take off the tin-foil hat, IBdaMann. There is no global conspiracy to hide CO2 measurement data.

The most accurate measurements of CO2 concentration are provided by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory station at Mauna Loa. The daily and weekly means are available here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

Their website describes exactly how the measurements are taken and how they are able to estimate the accuracy of their measurements to be about 0.2 ppm. The device that Jakob mentioned is intended for use in measuring CO2 and other concentrations in smoke stacks, where the concentrations are much higher. Laboratories measuring background CO2 levels use much more sensitive apparatus.
Edited on 25-11-2015 09:32
25-11-2015 10:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­The first you wrote about was as I remember it something with laser.
Was it maybe a spectrometer like this:

Stack Gas Analyzer GI-700 Series
http://www.horiba.com/process-environmental/products/combustion/details/stack-gas-analyzer-gi-700-series-24881/

They say this about the precision:

5 ppm High-Precision measurement (NOx, SO2 and CO) is available.



They don't mention CO2 but 5 ppm don't seem good enough for the purpose hunted in this subject.

Or maybe it does.

If you just get enough data you can increase the certainty just fine..?

Calibration is not important if we just want to read the change.
­


No, that is not where I mentioned it. I was referring to the instrumentation used to measure CO2 at monitoring stations like Mauna Loa (the reference station for North America).

Calibration is important if you want absolute values of any kind. It is also not the point. The point is the possibility of a contaminant introducing false values in the measurements, regardless of the calibration used.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2015 10:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
The most accurate measurements of CO2 concentration are provided by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory station at Mauna Loa. The daily and weekly means are available here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

Their website describes exactly how the measurements are taken and how they are able to estimate the accuracy of their measurements to be about 0.2 ppm. The device that Jakob mentioned is intended for use in measuring CO2 and other concentrations in smoke stacks, where the concentrations are much higher. Laboratories measuring background CO2 levels use much more sensitive apparatus.


And it is this instrument where I bring the question. While calibration is automatically performed against reference gases, and the effect of water vapor is removed, there still remains the possibility of other gases introducing false readings in the chamber.

Yes, I have read their description (and even examined the apparatus, having installed equipment in this particular station). It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it's as accurate as they believe it is. There are some problems with the design of this type of instrument.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2015 10:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The most accurate measurements of CO2 concentration are provided by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory station at Mauna Loa. The daily and weekly means are available here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

Their website describes exactly how the measurements are taken and how they are able to estimate the accuracy of their measurements to be about 0.2 ppm. The device that Jakob mentioned is intended for use in measuring CO2 and other concentrations in smoke stacks, where the concentrations are much higher. Laboratories measuring background CO2 levels use much more sensitive apparatus.


And it is this instrument where I bring the question. While calibration is automatically performed against reference gases, and the effect of water vapor is removed, there still remains the possibility of other gases introducing false readings in the chamber.

Yes, I have read their description (and even examined the apparatus, having installed equipment in this particular station). It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it's as accurate as they believe it is. There are some problems with the design of this type of instrument.

They use non-dispersive infrared analyzers (see the references on the website) that are sensitive to absorption at the characteristic wavelengths for particular gases. CO2 has its own characteristic absorption spectrum and so can be easily distinguished from other gases.
25-11-2015 12:23
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



Jakob wrote:
­Stack Gas Analyzer GI-700 Series
http://www.horiba.com/process-environmental/products/combustion/details/stack-gas-analyzer-gi-700-series-24881/

They say this about the precision:

5 ppm High-Precision measurement (NOx, SO2 and CO) is available.



They don't mention CO2 but 5 ppm don't seem good enough for the purpose hunted in this subject.

Or maybe it does.

If you just get enough data you can increase the certainty just fine..?

Calibration is not important if we just want to read the change.
­



I also guess 5 ppm is in absolute measuring.

If you measure a change the accuracy in the instrument is likely to be very much better.





­
25-11-2015 20:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The most accurate measurements of CO2 concentration are provided by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory station at Mauna Loa. The daily and weekly means are available here:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

Their website describes exactly how the measurements are taken and how they are able to estimate the accuracy of their measurements to be about 0.2 ppm. The device that Jakob mentioned is intended for use in measuring CO2 and other concentrations in smoke stacks, where the concentrations are much higher. Laboratories measuring background CO2 levels use much more sensitive apparatus.


And it is this instrument where I bring the question. While calibration is automatically performed against reference gases, and the effect of water vapor is removed, there still remains the possibility of other gases introducing false readings in the chamber.

Yes, I have read their description (and even examined the apparatus, having installed equipment in this particular station). It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure it's as accurate as they believe it is. There are some problems with the design of this type of instrument.

They use non-dispersive infrared analyzers (see the references on the website) that are sensitive to absorption at the characteristic wavelengths for particular gases. CO2 has its own characteristic absorption spectrum and so can be easily distinguished from other gases.

The NDIR is, in fact, sensitive to gases other than CO2. Other gases use the same wavelengths as the target gas being measured. Water vapor is particularly a problem, which is why they dry the air as much as possible (that's never perfect either). The instrument also does not change the color of light (which is closely calibrated to a color standard) or the optical filter (which is closely calibrated to a color standard) it uses. The signature you are describing is never made. You set it so you hopefully are on a frequency where other gases are transparent and leave it.

Because of the overlap of carbon dioxide with other gases found in the atmosphere, that's not possible. As a result, they attempt to remove those other gases by using ratios of known gases in the atmosphere that were detected by a real spectrometer.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2015 13:43
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



As an inspiration to come closer to the right answer about how much the CO2 concentration will go down if we do a 50 or 100% emission cut for one year, I want to bring this to the subject:


If we today blow out 100g CO2 into the atmosphere half of it will be gone in 30 years.
After a few 100 years more 30% more of it will be gone.
And the rest will take several thousand years to completely disappear.



I cannot verify it but I think it is from the IPCC


And I don't know how to use it yet but it seems to me it gives a little more hope for a faster drop in the beginning if humanity decides to cut or halfcut emissions for a year.





­­
30-11-2015 18:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­



As an inspiration to come closer to the right answer about how much the CO2 concentration will go down if we do a 50 or 100% emission cut for one year, I want to bring this to the subject:


If we today blow out 100g CO2 into the atmosphere half of it will be gone in 30 years.
After a few 100 years more 30% more of it will be gone.
And the rest will take several thousand years to completely disappear.



I cannot verify it but I think it is from the IPCC


And I don't know how to use it yet but it seems to me it gives a little more hope for a faster drop in the beginning if humanity decides to cut or halfcut emissions for a year.





­­

The key point is you cannot verify it.

The sounds like someone is looking at carbon dioxide's 'half life' in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 12:04
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­






Is it possible to do a one year global emission halfcut..?



I say yes.

It is only a matter of agreement and some extra work to the administrations.
And the scientific part of the administration will also learn a good lesson for the future.

The people may not like it and it is maybe a little complicated but done wisely for only one year the suffering must be very limited.


Do we all agree..?






­
03-12-2015 12:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:Do we all agree..?
­

You are wrong to look at this from the perspective of how easy it would be for the govenment while dismissing the difficulty for the people.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 13:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
Jakob wrote:
­






Is it possible to do a one year global emission halfcut..?



I say yes.

It is only a matter of agreement and some extra work to the administrations.
And the scientific part of the administration will also learn a good lesson for the future.

The people may not like it and it is maybe a little complicated but done wisely for only one year the suffering must be very limited.


Do we all agree..?



No it is not psooible to halve the output of all power we use on earth.

That would kill millions. How many deaths would you like to happen?

Prat.



­
03-12-2015 15:12
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



I never said it would be easy but why did you put a man on the moon..?



And why should anybody starve..??

I think the opposite (more food than ever) is more likely.

In the last weeks before the halfcut-year begins we will have to slaughter a lot of the meet production.
So as a little paradox there may be more than enough meet at least in the beginning of the year.

And the world can actually benefit from a meet production reduction.

For every 1 kg beef not produced there can somewhere instead be approx 5-10 kg good vegetables to feed the people with.


Can we do an emission halfcut for one year..?

What can Obama answer but.... Yes we can..!






­­
03-12-2015 16:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:I never said it would be easy but why did you put a man on the moon..?

That's why no one ever said they would agree to it.

Jakob wrote: And why should anybody starve..??

Not "should" but "would."
Lack of food will do it. If there are people now who are starving because sufficient food is not reaching them, that number can only increase if we reduce shipping and distribution.

Jakob wrote: I think the opposite (more food than ever) is more likely.

Why does this not surprise me?

Jakob wrote: In the last weeks before the halfcut-year begins we will have to slaughter a lot of the meet production.

Will that mean that my daughter will have only half as many gymnastics meets? That alone will cut down substantially on my travel. 8)

Jakob wrote:For every 1 kg beef not produced there can somewhere instead be approx 5-10 kg good vegetables to feed the people with.

Let's not warp Global Warming into Veganism, please!

Jakob wrote:Can we do an emission halfcut for one year..?
What can Obama answer but.... Yes we can..!

Whatever Obama says, how can anyone answer but "Your Congress won't approve anything you promise!"


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 16:36
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
Jakob wrote:I never said it would be easy but why did you put a man on the moon..?



And why should anybody starve..??

I think the opposite (more food than ever) is more likely.

In the last weeks before the halfcut-year begins we will have to slaughter a lot of the meet production.
So as a little paradox there may be more than enough meet at least in the beginning of the year.

And the world can actually benefit from a meet production reduction.

For every 1 kg beef not produced there can somewhere instead be approx 5-10 kg good vegetables to feed the people with.


Can we do an emission halfcut for one year..?

What can Obama answer but.... Yes we can..!


Given that something like a blast furnace which makes steel out of rock needs to be opperated continiously or you will need to build a new one they would all need to have the fuel still fed into them, the ore dug up, and both transported to them.

If lots of poor places where tourism is a major section of the conomy are not to starve they will need the planes to fly.

If you don't want loads of old people to die off for no good reason then you will have to keep lots of people's heating on.

If you don't want riots in the streets you will need there not to be massive unemployment.

How will the world's poor manage to get the food they need with the transportation stopped for you needless experiment which will tell you nothing?

Prat.
03-12-2015 16:45
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­
­


An emission halfcut will of course not stop important transportation of food.





­
03-12-2015 16:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:
An emission halfcut will of course not stop important transportation of food.


What kind of math are you using?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 18:17
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­­
­

Transportation is only 14%




http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html




­­
03-12-2015 19:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote: Transportation is only 14%

I don't necessarily buy these percentages, but regardless, you would be fine with the world delivering only half of half the amount of food we deliver now to regions that have starving people?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-12-2015 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­I never said it would be easy but why did you put a man on the moon..?­­
We put a man on the moon to learn about it, to learn how to operate in space, to see if we could build a ship capable of the journey, and to demonstrate our ability to navigate, even to within 30 feet of the intended landing spot on the surface of another world.
Jakob wrote:
And why should anybody starve..??

I think the opposite (more food than ever) is more likely.

In the last weeks before the halfcut-year begins we will have to slaughter a lot of the meet production.
So as a little paradox there may be more than enough meet at least in the beginning of the year.

And the world can actually benefit from a meet production reduction.­­

Who are you to decide on my diet? Or the diet of anybody else? Ranchers raise cattle because there is a market for them. Who are you to decide what is a 'sustainable' population of cattle?
Jakob wrote:
For every 1 kg beef not produced there can somewhere instead be approx 5-10 kg good vegetables to feed the people with.
­­
People don't eat grass.
Jakob wrote:
Can we do an emission halfcut for one year..?­­
Why?
Jakob wrote:
What can Obama answer but.... Yes we can..!

­­

When you are through prostrating yourself in front of that idiot, we'll talk.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2015 20:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Jakob wrote:
­
­


An emission halfcut will of course not stop important transportation of food.





­


Who are you to decide what should be transported? Who are you to decide what is 'important' food?


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2015 14:29
jdm
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
Jakob wrote:... imagine the whole world decides to stop almost all emissions for a period...if the CO2-stop just takes a few days or a week or two..?
­


The only way to stop industrial human CO2 emissions is shut down all commerce globally. That is because it runs on mostly carbon-based energy. No cars moving, no airlines flying, no trains, no farm machinery, no HVAC, no refrigeration, no diesel backup generators, no electric lights, no internet, no telecommunications, no elevators -- in every nation on earth.

The 437 nuclear reactors worldwide would likely shut down (if they did not melt down) since they are not designed to operate without external power from the utility grid.

Gross world product is roughly $107 trillion, so this would cost roughly $293 billion per day, IOW in a single day it squanders the capital that could convert the entire United States vehicle fleet to algae-sourced biodiesel. The experimental global shutdown of all industrial carbon emissions would likely cause many fatalities, which in turn adds more cost and liability.

While there's nothing wrong contemplating things like this as a thought experiment, it's important to realize it is not remotely achievable in the real world.
22-12-2015 13:50
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­
­



@jdm

100% emission cut for a year was indeed just a thought experiment.








@still learning



Maybe I have finally found something to tease you with.



James Hansen 2015, COP21:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI5YjpiOf9o


I get this:

6% emission reduction per year => 2 ppm CO2 athmosphere concentration reduktion per year.



So what will 50% emission reduction for one year then do..?



Maybe you need a new envelope..?




Or maybe we just have to ask the world to help testing it..?



Feel no shame to do so.
Handled right it will be very good for the world to focus on climate like that for a year.
Or you can just put something like that in as a condition and leave the policy argument to others. If you are a climate scientist more than a politician.





Happy Christmas.




­­­
23-12-2015 14:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Jakob wrote:Handled right it will be very good for the world to focus on climate like that for a year.

Before we can focus on "climate"...don't we need to know what it is first?

What is the "global climate"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-12-2015 15:56
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
In the natural world, the level of CO2 in the air is driven by Earth's temperature. If temperature is higher, CO2 is higher. If temperature is lower, CO2 is lower. CO2 in the air will not magically decrease as IPCC claims it will. If humans do not do anything with CO2, the level of CO2 in the air cannot change unless Earth's temperature changes. Earth is in balance. Only humans can upset that balance. Look this chart, see how CO2 is extremely stable over hundreds of thousands of years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Edited on 23-12-2015 15:59
24-12-2015 09:18
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­


@Tai Hai Chen


I can't use youtube at the moment.

But I do think a global 50% emission cut for one year is relevant to see how it can change the CO2 atmosphere concentration.

Do you too..?




­
24-12-2015 10:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
Jakob wrote:
­


@Tai Hai Chen


I can't use youtube at the moment.

But I do think a global 50% emission cut for one year is relevant to see how it can change the CO2 atmosphere concentration.

Do you too..?




­


Killing millions of people is not a good thing.

One year of not having industry would not show anything about the world's climate.
25-12-2015 14:47
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­




Tim the plumber wrote:
Jakob wrote:
­


@Tai Hai Chen


I can't use youtube at the moment.

But I do think a global 50% emission cut for one year is relevant to see how it can change the CO2 atmosphere concentration.

Do you too..?




­


Killing millions of people is not a good thing.

One year of not having industry would not show anything about the world's climate.




To answer this so you can understand it I think I will need a word from your own vocabulary:



Idiocy.






­
­
25-12-2015 15:01
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Jakob wrote:
­


@Tai Hai Chen


I can't use youtube at the moment.

But I do think a global 50% emission cut for one year is relevant to see how it can change the CO2 atmosphere concentration.

Do you too..?


Why should humans reduce CO2 level in the air. First, it's a trace gas like methane. Second, if CO2 increases 50% from pre industrial, it's because humans are great. Humans must show they can dominant nature, not the other way around. If you wish to live with nature, you are welcome to do so in a forest, live in a wooden house, burn wood for heating, no electricity, no running water, no sewage.
Edited on 25-12-2015 15:02
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Total global CO2-stop (scientific value?):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Let's stop debating climate change and start combating it - Michael Mann1124-11-2017 17:14
CO2 and Global Warming712-11-2017 17:50
Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i5906-11-2017 19:51
Manual Way To Stop Climate Change?1005-10-2017 18:02
Can we build an efficient hybrid solar-natural gas engine that emits no CO2?305-10-2017 02:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact